River out of Eden
xiii
It is rather curious that Dr. Dawkins has a wife that can do illustrations. My wife
has also that ability and has done art and craft work for the creationist cause. She and other
members of my family are also competent actors.
4
Strictly speaking DNA is simply the physical substance that carries information.
The information is what is preserved from generation to generation.
6
It is at least curious that Dr. Dawkins makes use of the river that flowed out of
Eden and became four heads to illustrate his thinking on the way that genes separate and
become distinct species. The river out of Eden has always intrigued me because rivers do not
normally divide in the way the river out of Eden did. I live near the river Test which divides, then
joins up again making islands. However it does not become separate rivers. You get river deltas,
but I have not to date heard of a river whose headwaters divide in the way the river out of Eden
did. The usual scenario is for separate rivers to run downhill and merge into one another. Dr.
Dawkins seems to think that the rivers of DNA are continually separating from one another and
making separate streams. What causes a river of genes to become so geographically isolated that
separate species emerge is apparently controversial, but in any case such a separation would not
involve a totally different kind of creature emerging, but at most a new species with relatively
small differences from the old. The two species that emerge could well have less variety in their
genes, rather like what one would get if one split a pack of cards.
8
It is remarkable that surviving species constitute about 1 % of species that have
ever lived. This does not look like an increase in variety, which is what the theory of evolution
would lead us to expect.
12
Because the genetic code is the same in all animals, plants and bacteria that have
been looked at Dr. Dawkins jumps to the conclusion that all earthly living things are descended
from a single ancestor. This does not follow. It can just as easily be argued that it shows they all
had the same maker. This is the more likely explanation because, although from the bone
structure of animals, for instance, an evolutionary tree of sorts can be concocted, we can see that
if we took other characteristics of animals we could build up quite different trees. Suppose we
were to build up trees based on increase in intelligence or maternal feelings the trees would be
quite different. Further, if we were to classify creatures according to whether they hibernated,
migrated, grew spines etc., the animals would fall under quite different headings. The evolutionist
has to fall back on that easy way out - convergent evolution.
16
“Digital coding... natural selection has duly adopted it”. When did it adopt it ?
Was it not in use from the beginning of life on earth ? If not, how was it selected ? Certainly it is
the best method, but this does not mean that the analog method was displaced. Perhaps the
analog method has some place somewhere in the scheme of things, else why is there such a
thing?
17
“A mechanistic view of life”. There are mechanisms in place for life to continue
and beings to reproduce themselves. However all depends on a code which would have had to be
written in the first place.
18
“Prime numbers - which cannot have arisen spontaneously”. However, are we not
expected to believe that the genetic code arose spontaneously. If not, how did it arise ?
19
“Survival of the survivors”. Some would see this as a tautology. The survivors
survived !
If the copying process is as perfect as Dr. Dawkins says it is (and I believe him),
minor genetic changes could never have produced the vast variety of flora and fauna that exists
on this planet. It seems that Dr. Dawkins is virtually asking us to have blind faith in the theory of
evolution - to accept it without real evidence and indeed in the teeth of the evidence. There are an
enormous number of varieties in the plant and insect worlds. God might ask what further
evidence do you want of my eternal power and divinity (Romans 1:19/20). In other words: “Dr.
Dawkins , what evidence would you need to convince you that our world and all that is in it was
created and did not just come into existence by mechanistic physical processes ?”
21
“Each cell has a highly complex interior structure”. It is not just personal
incredulity to say that this could not have come into existence simply by the working of random
forces. The walls had to come into existence by some means and also the chemicals that react
with one another (see page 22). And then there are the enzymes.
26
“Flat feet”. Yes, I was diagnosed as having flat feet and being underweight. It did
not however debar me from the army, but it did mean I was not A1 and was therefore classified
as only fit for communications duties. This would mean that I would not be placed in the front
line and would not therefore be so likely to be killed or wounded. Had I had a weak heart or
asthma (two cases known to me) I would not have been taken into the army at all. In all such
cases it is not the fittest that is the most likely to survive. Similarly, it was pointed out to me many
years ago that it is usually the strong swimmers that drown, because they are more likely to take
risks.
31
I like it when I can agree with Dr. Dawkins . There is a difference between truth
and falsehood, righteousness and lawlessness, good and evil, wisdom and folly, light and
darkness. If we don’t recognise this we will soon find ourselves in a fog and if we believe that
there is no real difference between these things we might as well throw away our science
textbooks, Bible and all (consider for instance Ecclesiastes 2:13).
33
What may be brought under the heading Religion I will not go into now, but
scientific knowledge is one thing and the evolutionary theory of origins another. Certainly
airplanes not built according to scientific principles would not fly, but then neither would living
creatures come into existence if they had not got a being (scientist) greater than themselves to
make them. However, the history of living things and their origin - the writing of the genetic code -
is outside the remit of science. Science in seeking to investigate these things is getting someone
might say: “Too big for its boots”. In days gone by the papacy pronounced on scientific matters
which it knew little about and made a fool of itself. Science needs to be careful that it does not do
the same.
40
The Song of Solomon no doubt does contain some translation errors so that while
accuracy is lost, the phrases may be better sounding in English. Man’s mind has been exercised
in making the translations so that the mistakes are not strictly comparable to random mutations
(errors) in the natural world. They are more like the selective growing of flowers by man which
makes them more aesthetically pleasing, though unless cosseted by him they would be less likely
to survive in the wild or would revert to their more natural type.
42
Anyone can see by looking at any particular creature roughly how similar we are
to it. As animals are made according to the genetic recipe it is only to be expected that the
creatures most like ourselves would have the most similar genetic make up. It would be strange if
they did not, though one would have to allow for the fact that superficial resemblance may not be
the whole story.
44
“Rather good evidence, if evidence were needed, that the theory of evolution is
true”. We certainly do need evidence if we are to be expected to believe that evolution is true. The
family trees that Dr. Dawkins says are good evidence that evolution has taken place are not given
by Dr. Dawkins so we cannot check whether his statement is justified. Mutation rates over
thousands, or indeed millions of years can only be extrapolations based on current mutation
rates, as no one was watching the mutation of genes until very recent times. However we have
no certain evidence that mutation rates have always remained constant. The causes of mutations
may not always have been the same as they are today: radiation levels for example. What Dr.
Dawkins puts forward as a proof of evolution could be said to be suspect for this reason alone.
74
Mimicry would only be as perfect as was necessary to fool predators. Presumably
an evolutionist would not expect it to improve beyond that. Further one would suppose that
mimicry would not be so perfect that all predators would always be fooled, because if so the
mimics would become almost invulnerable to predation with the danger of a population
explosion.
77
Talking of eyes it is quite clear from what Dr.Dawkins says that there are all kinds
of eyes, some relatively simple and others more complex. The simple ones have obviously not all
evolved into complex eyes else why do we still have simple ones. Further, why do the higher
animals all have two eyes whereas more lowly creatures often have more ? That each creature has
the right number and complexity of eyes necessary for the well-being of that particular species is
no doubt true. However, how did it get them ? By a very large number of favourable mutations as
the evolutionist would say or because they were programmed from the beginning to have the
number and complexity of the eyes that they have, as a creationist would say.
78
Dr. Dawkins says that eyes have evolved independently over forty times and there
are at least nine design principles. However what about the other senses - hearing, tasting,
smelling and feeling. Have the organs giving us these senses also evolved independently umpteen
times ? Eyes seem to be the subject of discussion because of their obvious complexity and
because Darwin was concerned about them. However, the other senses are also important and
the question may well be asked: “Which creature is nearest to mankind in each case” ? Are the
anthropoid apes the nearest to us in each case or, if not, is not our near relationship to them
thrown into greater doubt ?
84
“It is hard to imagine the intermediates”. In the cases on this page and others it is
the lack of the mass of expected intermediates in the fossil record that worries non-evolutionists.
If there are none the whole evolutionary system falls to the ground. Bringing forward a few
intermediates of doubtful validity is not adequate especially when there are other possible
explanations for their existence.
92
“A plausible series of intermediates”. Because something is plausible, that is, has
some credibility, does not mean it is right. Evidence is required to convince anyone except the
credulous.
95
Darwin’s gradual loss of faith was apparently fueled by reading the works of
F.W.Newman the brother of the celebrated Cardinal Newman. One of these books (Phases of
Faith) was criticized in detail by John Nelson Darby. One could reasonably say that Darwin’s
outlook being coloured by the book mentioned and other similar works, led to his concentrating
on naturalistic explanations for the phenomena we see around us.
A creationist would probably postulate that such creatures as the digger wasp and
caterpillar are not conscious. It would probably be difficult if not impossible to prove that they
are or are not. In any case such creatures do not live long anyway and quite likely end up as food
for something or other. A creationist would also no doubt consider that there are lessons to be
learned from all these creatures and what happens to them, the lessons being warning ones as
well as comforting ones (see Job12:7/8 ).
96
“Today we pride ourselves on having shaken off such primitive animism”. At the
risk of saying something that will sound hurtful and irritate the reader I would say that it is man’s
pride in his science that is the reason for the blindness of the evolutionist to the work of a
superior being in the making of the cosmos and all that is in it. The postulation of evolution as the
method by which everything came to exist has not so far as I am aware ever benefited mankind
in the way that, say, the scientific discovery of aero dynamics has. It has no use in technology
and its effects on society have as far as one can see been always adverse. The atheistic aspect of it
was stressed in Communism and its survival of the fittest aspect in Nazism. Where has that led ?
Both systems are generally discredited today. Then there is the idea that the higher apes are our
cousins. This lies behind the animal rights movement. I believe in being kind to animals (there are
a number of passages of Scripture to support this, whether we go to the Mosaic law or to the
book of Proverbs), but not putting them forward as if they were human. For this reason my
parents did not encourage us to read books where animals communed with humans, though
animals speaking amongst themselves was OK. This was before the animal rights movement got
underway, though there were antivivisectionists and vegetarians around. It is not that my parents
took pleasure in unkindness to animals. They would not have hunted foxes or taken us to see the
circus !
97
In the world in which we live it is often reasonable to ask Why questions. German
bombers used to fly low over the house in which I lived during World War II. They never
dropped a bomb on it. Why ? We do not know the reason save that the town in which I lived was
not of any strategic importance - there were no factories there. There may have been another
reason. It has been suggested that our house which was covered with white rough cast probably
stood out in the moonlight. It is thought that it was shown on German maps as a landmark,
something I have never been able to prove or disprove. So far as the cosmos is concerned it is not
unreasonable to ask why it should exist. It is understandable that Dr. Atkins should not be able to
give a reason seeing he is an atheist, but anyone who believes in a god or gods would expect to
be able to give an answer. As to Dr. Dawkins, some wag could well come forward with the idea
that he believes in the Gene god seeing he considers everything to be determined by the desire of
the genes to preserve themselves or, perhaps one should say, the information they contain. They
apparently do this by straining to reproduce themselves as much as possible through bodies
which push out of the way all inferior ones.
105
Cheetahs and antelopes. Generally speaking an alert, healthy and agile antelope
could well escape the clutches of a cheetah, but an old and sick one could well not do so. In a
way it would be better in the latter circumstance to be caught by a cheetah, rather than suffer a
lingering death from illness or starvation. How much feeling an antelope has we do not know.
The Bible speaks of the whole creation travailing in pain (Romans 8:22), so it is not unreasonable
to suppose that they have some feelings however small, say, death by predation being like a cut
finger to us. The Bible says that all such suffering will cease (Isaiah 16.3 ).
103
To my mind there is a tendency for evolutionists to flatter one another. Dr .
Dawkins speaks of Daniel Dennet’s superb book. Then on page 107 he writes of the great Sir
Ronald Fisher. Further on page 108 he writes of the great British evolutionist John Maynard
Smith. If we then go on to page 128 we get the distinguished Darwinians G.C. Williams and
W. D.H amilton. I can’t imagine Dr. Dawkins saying these things of a creationist however erudite.
121
“God’s Utility Function”. I wonder why Dr. Dawkins introduces the word God in
here when he has explained what he means by Utility Function on the previous page.
As to trees, one has supposed that trees tend to grow taller rather than wider when
in a wood. However trees are still trees when they grow in the middle of a field. An oak may
spread more in such circumstances, but it still grows to quite a height. One might ask why we do
not have two species of oak, a tall one for woodland growth and a spreading one for field growth.
However like all plants and animals oak trees have their limitations, that is they are limited in
height growth and in spreading growth. It is the built in controls that determine their limitations.
They cannot bend in the wind as much as, say, the corn in a field. They are more rigid. It is all
part of their makeup.
124
“Natural selection will favour a leveling out of quality... until a proper balance is
struck over all parts of the body.” This statement assumes that there was an imbalance to start
with. I wonder if a fossil could be found that had an imbalance that has subsequently been
corrected. Dr Dawkins does not give us one. All he produces is an example from the world of
motor manufacturing.
130
“Most mutational effects are bad”. Creationists would tell us that they are all bad
or at best neutral. It is however true that races have their strengths and weaknesses as do also
individuals. I have heard it said of one nation that they are a volatile people, of another that they
tend to be arrogant, of another that they tend to be thieves and yet another that they are given to
temper tantrums. I shall probably not make myself popular with the politically correct to say so,
but if that is the truth we might as well face it. The things I have mentioned are weaknesses but
races have their strengths also. It may be they are good runners, good boxers or have good
memories and so on. An individual may be defective in one way but have compensating abilities
in other directions. For example, blind persons are often good musicians. I have known more
than one such.
Further one might mention that outward beauty may mask an empty personality.
On the other hand an ugly person may have an entrancing personality. Rarely, has any one
individual got everything that nature can provide. Dogs can be bred for speed, for following a
scent, to be useful as house dogs, and so on. There is no real reason to suppose that these
features did not exist ab initio, but an evolutionist will assume they did not.
131
The atheistic evolutionist must almost necessarily be a pessimist. He cannot really
look for happiness. Personally he can only look forward to death with the hope that the
information in his genes will survive in future generations. Such a scenario does not encourage
altruism. Years ago a letter to a newspaper pointed out that no atheist had ever been known to do
anything morally great. A reply said that Florence Nightingale had, but then yet another
correspondent said that she was not an atheist but a freethinking deist.
133
To a Christian the world is beautifully designed but has been marred by sin. There
is not only evil itself but its byproducts which are found in the illnesses which plague the world.
The Christian believes that God is going to put away all these things. It is all spelled out in the
Bible which I am sure Dr. Dawkins knows. See for instance Revelation 21.
135
Supernovas happen suddenly. This at least shows that things in this universe can
take place very quickly sometimes. How then can we be sure that the expanding universe did not
originally expand at a very fast rate and has since slowed down ? The present is not always the
key to the past. Uniformitarianism , which implies the nonoccurrence of extraordinary events in
the past, is a weak prop to depend on, as Immanuel Velikovsky pointed out.
137
“Spontaneous arising of self-replicating yet variable entities”. Apart from the
question of whether entities can arise spontaneously, it may be pointed out that there is a vast
difference between a supernova and the bursting forth of the immense variety of life on this
planet. Explosions do not generate life or any kind of order. They are a destructive force and in
the case of a supernova effectively bring the ‘life’ of a star to an end. The bursting forth of life on
the other hand is the coming into expression of what was previously dormant as when we say
Spring has sprung. This is even more evident in some parts of the world where life appears when
the rains come, in some arid areas very infrequently.
139
As Dr. Dawkins says “like begets like”. This is not in itself a new idea. For
instance, Christ mentions it in John 3:6. To generate variety, save what is already contained
within the genetic makeup of creature, something other than replication is necessary.
142
“The explosion that turned into life and information began”. This is a strange
statement to make - an explosion turning into life and information beginning. A river must have a
source, so the river of life must have one. For a Christian the source is God (Acts 17:25). I
mention this to show that there is another explanation for the origin of life and all things than that
put forward by Dr. Dawkins. Then there is the genetic information. It is just that - information,
and in the case of living things is the recipe in them showing how they can make a replicating
body. Cooking recipes do not arise spontaneously, and there is no reason to suppose that the
recipes for making replicating bodies did either. The big question is who or what is the source of
the information ?
144
“Since DNA chains are of indefinite length, the range of available variation is
effectively infinite.” Presumably there must be some limit else bodies would not be large enough
to contain the DNA chains. One has considered the possibility that a genome could contain the
program for every living thing. However, apart from the fact that this is not the case, replicating
bodies would not be large enough to contain all the information and, if they did, the earth would
just be a muddle - species would not be distinguishable. However, if there had not been from the
outset mechanisms in place to keep species distinct it is likely that an increase in genetic
information in the original replicating bodies (if such could just happen) would effectively have
produced the scenario I have just outlined.
150
Chain letters and replicating organisms are not entirely comparable, because chain
letters are composed by thinking persons, whereas DNA sequences are fixed as letters in a book -
no mind is changing or adding to them. Any changes are those brought about by physical
elements such as radiation.
151
“What we can do is guess at a general chronology of a life explosion on any
planet”. When the theory of evolution involves guessing it seems unreasonable to claim that the
theory is fact which is what many evolutionists do. “Cuvier rejected Lamarck’s views of
evolution and Owen followed him in 1868 by dismissing likewise ‘the guess endeavours of
Lamarck, Darwin, Wallace and others’ on the production of species.” The Natural History
Museum at South Kensington by William T. Stearn. Page 31. Even Darwin did not hold to his
theory all that strongly and is reputed near the end of his life to have said: “I threw out queries,
suggestions, wondering all the time over everything; and to my astonishment the ideas took like
wildfire. People made a religion of them” (The Darwin Legend by James Moore page 53). Maybe
in saying this Darwin was suiting himself to company (Lady Hope) as best he could. By the look
on his face before he said what he did Lady Hope realised that it was not something that he liked
talking about, at least to her. It may be noted that he did not repudiate his theory, but made
statements which gave lady Hope the idea that he had.
What was actually in his mind we shall almost certainly never know.
153
Dr. Dawkins speaks of life on planets. For life to exist on planets the necessary
conditions must exist. The right atmosphere. The right protective covering to keep out harmful
radiation etc. Further there must be a covering of earth on the ground before plants can grow and
produce herbs which can be eaten by animals. There must be a Sun as a power source to produce
light for photosynthesis and to enable creatures to see where they are going and to keep them
from all freezing to death. The Sun would have to be at a suitable distance to stop the planet
being cooked. Then there would need to be a watering system in place as there is now, that is,
dew and rain. All this shows that a very intelligent being must have been at work in the setting up
of this habitation for animals and mankind. It is not only a matter of the earth as a habitat
generally, but each species of plant and animal needs its own habitat. Some creatures and plants
can live or grow almost anywhere, but others need a particular habitat to survive, hence loss of
habitat is at the present time contributing to the extinction of organisms on this planet. In this
connection it may be mentioned that many species are interdependent. Taking a broad view
herbivores need vegetation to survive, carnivores need herbivores and so on. Some animals (and
also insects) feed on specific things which if those things disappeared the knock on effect would
be for the feeders to die out unless they could find another satisfactory source of food. In some
cases there could well be a domino effect. All this suggests that the whole cosmos probably came
into existence in a relatively short space of time.
156
That the product produced by the information in cells is not the same as the cells
has really been evident for many years, because a seed is not the same as the body that emerges
from it as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:37/38.
157
“The bipedal ape species Homo sapiens”. I would leave out the word ape for
reasons already considered. Mankind has a mind that can plan, consider options, work out
complex mathematical formulae, write books, lecture, paint, compose and play music etc. etc. He
can worship and philosophize. As to worship, probably the nearest thing in the animal creation is
a dog fawning on his master. Man can go to the moon because he can calculate how to navigate
so as to get there. Rockets sent into the sky at random would probably never hit it. There would
be an enormous waste of resources. However, the evolutionist seems to think that random
mutations honed by natural selection are going to produce in time the mind that can work out
how to reach the Moon, or Mars for that matter.
161
Personally I doubt the existence of aliens on other planets even if there are such
orbs outside our own solar system. The only likely alien life are the heavenly beings spoken of in
the Bible and similar books. The impression gained is that they do not come from anywhere in
the stellar heavens but from another sphere altogether. Paul speaks of the third heaven (2
Corinthians12:2), and Christ of my Father’s house (John 14:2).
June 2001